Physical long-term health problems and mental comorbidity: evidence from Vietnam

OBJECTIVE: The mental health of children living in low-income countries remains a neglected research area despite the high burden of disease. This study is one of the first that examines the effects of long-term physical health problems on child mental health disorders in a low-income country and investigates whether this association is modified by the socio-economic status of the child's family. METHODS: Community-based cross-sectional survey of 975 eight-year-old children from 20 sites in Vietnam. Long-term physical health problems were measured by a caregiver report and included conditions such as anaemia, congenital malformation, physical disability and skin problems. Child mental disorders were assessed using the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). Generalised estimating equations models were fitted to explore the association between long-term physical health problems and child mental disorders. RESULTS: Vietnamese children who suffer from long-term physical health problems have odds 2:1 times greater than children without long-term physical health problems of having a mental disorder (95% CI 1.2 to 3.6, p = 0.006). No significant interaction with socio-economic status was found. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a high burden of mental disorders among physically ill children, re-enforcing the idea that there is "no health without mental health". While this association needs to be explored longitudinally, children with long-term health problems may be a visible group for targeted mental-health interventions.

Joint lavage for osteoarthritis of the knee

Background Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disorder and a leading cause of pain and physical disability. Observational studies suggested a benefit for joint lavage, but recent, sham-controlled trials yielded conflicting results, suggesting joint lavage not to be effective. Objectives To compare joint lavage with sham intervention, placebo or non-intervention control in terms of effects on pain, function and safety outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to 3 August 2009, checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. Selection criteria We included studies if they were randomised or quasi-randomised trials that compared arthroscopic and non-arthroscopic joint lavage with a control intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. We did not apply any language restrictions. Data collection and analysis Two independent review authors extracted data using standardised forms. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. Main results We included seven trials with 567 patients. Three trials examined arthroscopic joint lavage, two non-arthroscopic joint lavage and two tidal irrigation. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting was poor and we identified a moderate to large degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I2 = 65%). We found little evidence for a benefit of joint lavage in terms of pain relief at three months (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.21), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between joint lavage and control of 0.3 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Results for improvement in function at three months were similar (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.11), corresponding to a difference in function scores between joint lavage and control of 0.2 cm on a WOMAC disability sub-scale from 0 to 10. For pain, estimates of effect sizes varied to some degree depending on the type of lavage, but this variation was likely to be explained by differences in the credibility of control interventions: trials using sham interventions to closely mimic the process of joint lavage showed a null-effect. Reporting on adverse events and drop out rates was unsatisfactory, and we were unable to draw conclusions for these secondary outcomes. Authors' conclusions Joint lavage does not result in a relevant benefit for patients with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain relief or improvement of function.

Therapeutic ultrasound for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Therapeutic ultrasound is one of several physical therapy modalities suggested for the management of pain and loss of function due to osteoarthritis (OA).

Osteoarthritis: rational approach to treating the individual

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Risk factors for incidence and progression of osteoarthritis vary considerably according to the type of joint. Disease assessment is difficult and the relationship between the radiographic severity of joint damage and the incidence and severity of pain is only modest. Psychosocial and socio-economic factors play an important role. This chapter will discuss four main guiding principles to the management of OA: (1) to avoid overtreating people with mild symptoms; (2) to attempt to avoid doing more harm than good ('primum non nocere'); (3) to base patient management on the severity of pain, disability and distress, and not on the severity of joint damage or radiographic change; and (4) to start with advice about simple measures that patients can take to help themselves, and only progress to interventions that require supervision or specialist knowledge if simple measures fail. Effect sizes derived from meta-analyses of large randomized trials in OA are only small to moderate for most therapeutic interventions, but they are still valuable for patients and clinically relevant for physicians. Joint replacement may be the only option with a large effect size, but is only appropriate for the relatively small number of people with OA who have advanced disease and severe symptoms. The key to successful management involves patient and health professionals working together to develop optimal treatment strategies for the individual.

Psychiatric comorbidity in patients with spasmodic dysphonia: a controlled study

OBJECTIVES: To study the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity assessed by a structured clinical interview in patients with spasmodic dysphonia (SD) compared with patients suffering from vocal fold paralysis (VFP). METHODS: In 48 patients with SD and 27 patients with VFP, overall psychiatric comorbidity was studied prospectively using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders. Physical disability and psychometric variables were assessed with standardised self-rating questionnaires. RESULTS: 41.7% of SD subjects and 19.5% of the control group met DSM-IV clinical criteria for current psychiatric comorbidity (p<0.05). Significant predictors of psychiatric comorbidity in SD were severity of voice impairment and subjective assessment of "satisfaction with health". As a limitation, the severity of voice impairment in patients with SD was nearly twice as high, and their illness had lasted nearly twice as long. CONCLUSIONS: We found a high prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity in patients with SD. The significant correlation between current psychiatric comorbidity and the extent of voice pathology may point to an especially strong interaction between somatic and psychiatric complaints in SD.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if patients suffer from severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects on pain and function and the safety of oral or transdermal opioids as compared with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Studies of tramadol were excluded. No language restrictions were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. Trials were combined using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials with 2268 participants were included. Oral codeine was studied in three trials, transdermal fentanyl and oral morphine in one trial each, oral oxycodone in four, and oral oxymorphone in two trials. Overall, opioids were more effective than control interventions in terms of pain relief (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.26) and improvement of function (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.21). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency (strong or weak), daily dose, duration of treatment or follow up, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Adverse events were more frequent in patients receiving opioids compared to control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.55 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.70) for any adverse event (4 trials), 4.05 (95% CI 3.06 to 5.38) for dropouts due to adverse events (10 trials), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials). Withdrawal symptoms were more severe after fentanyl treatment compared to placebo (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; 1 trial). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small to moderate beneficial effects of non-tramadol opioids are outweighed by large increases in the risk of adverse events. Non-tramadol opioids should therefore not be routinely used, even if osteoarthritic pain is severe.

Transcutaneous electrostimulation for osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), interferential current stimulation and pulsed electrostimulation are used widely to control both acute and chronic pain arising from several conditions, but some policy makers regard efficacy evidence as insufficient. OBJECTIVES: To compare transcutaneous electrostimulation with sham or no specific intervention in terms of effects on pain and withdrawals due to adverse events in patients with knee osteoarthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro up to 5 August 2008, checked conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared transcutaneously applied electrostimulation with a sham intervention or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using standardised forms and contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. Main outcomes were pain and withdrawals or dropouts due to adverse events. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and relative risks for safety outcomes and used inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. The analysis of pain was based on predicted estimates from meta-regression using the standard error as explanatory variable. MAIN RESULTS: In this update we identified 14 additional trials resulting in the inclusion of 18 small trials in 813 patients. Eleven trials used TENS, four interferential current stimulation, one both TENS and interferential current stimulation, and two pulsed electrostimulation. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting was poor and a high degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I(2) = 80%) was revealed. The funnel plot for pain was asymmetrical (P < 0.001). The predicted SMD of pain intensity in trials as large as the largest trial was -0.07 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.32), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between electrostimulation and control of 0.2 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. There was little evidence that SMDs differed on the type of electrostimulation (P = 0.94). The relative risk of being withdrawn or dropping out due to adverse events was 0.97 (95% CI 0.2 to 6.0). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update, we could not confirm that transcutaneous electrostimulation is effective for pain relief. The current systematic review is inconclusive, hampered by the inclusion of only small trials of questionable quality. Appropriately designed trials of adequate power are warranted.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.

BACKGROUND Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES To determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.

Patient-reported outcomes of maxillary implant-supported overdentures compared with conventional dentures

OBJECTIVE The aim of the present prospective clinical study was to compare patient-reported outcomes for maxillary conventional dentures and maxillary implant-supported dentures. MATERIAL AND METHODS Twenty-one patients (6 women and 15 men) being edentulous in the maxilla and encountering problems with their existing dentures were included. Twelve patients (4 women and 8 men) received a new set of conventional dentures, due to insufficient dentures. In nine patients (2 women and 7 men), the existing dentures were adjusted by means of relining or rebasing. All patients received implant-supported dentures on two retentive anchors. In total, 42 implants were inserted in the anterior maxilla. The participants rated their satisfaction on their existing conventional dentures, 2 months after insertion of new conventional dentures and 2 months after insertion of implant-supported dentures. Thereby, patients responded to questionnaires capturing the oral health impact profile (OHIP) using visual analog scales. Seven domains (functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical, psychological and social disability and handicap) were assessed. Higher scores implied poorer patient satisfaction. In addition, the questionnaire involved the evaluation of cleaning ability, general satisfaction, speech, comfort, esthetics, stability, and chewing ability. Higher scores implied higher patient satisfaction. RESULTS Patient satisfaction significantly increased for implant-supported dentures compared with old dentures in all seven OHIP subgroups, as well as for cleaning ability, general satisfaction, ability to speak, comfort, esthetics, and stability (P < 0.05). The comparison of new conventional dentures and implant-supported dentures revealed a statistically significantly increased satisfaction for functional limitation (difference of 33.2 mm), psychological discomfort (difference of 36.7 mm), physical disability (difference of 36.3 mm), and social disability (difference of 23.5 mm), (P < 0.05). Additionally, general satisfaction, chewing ability, speech, and stability significantly improved in implant-supported dentures (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Within the limits of this study, maxillary dentures retained by two implants provided some significant short-term improvements over conventional dentures in oral- and health-related quality of life.

Does land-based exercise reduce pain and disability associated with hip osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective To determine if clinical guidelines recommending therapeutic exercise for people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) are supported by rigorous scientific evidence. Methods A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with hip OA and comparing some form of land-based exercise program (as opposed to exercises conducted in the water) with a non-exercise group in terms of hip pain and/or self-reported physical function. Results Thirty-two RCTs were identified, but only five met the inclusion criteria. Only one of the five included RCTs restricted recruitment to people with hip OA, the other four RCTs also recruiting participants with knee OA. The five included studies provided data on 204 and 187 hip OA participants for pain and physical function, respectively. Combining the results of the five included RCTs using a fixed-effects model demonstrated a small treatment effect for pain (standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.67 to −0.09). No significant benefit in terms of improved self-reported physical function was detected (SMD −0.02; 95% CI −0.31 to 0.28). Conclusion Currently there is only silver level evidence (one small RCT) supporting the benefit of land-based therapeutic exercise for people with symptomatic hip OA in terms of reduced pain and improved physical function. The limited number and small sample size of the included RCTs restricts the confidence that can be attributed to these results.

Factor Structure of the Neck Disability Index

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The Neck Disability Index frequently is used to measure outcomes of the neck. The statistical rigor of the Neck Disability Index has been assessed with conflicting outcomes. To date, Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Neck Disability Index has not been reported for a suitably large population study. Because the Neck Disability Index is not a condition-specific measure of neck function, initial Confirmatory Factor Analysis should consider problematic neck patients as a homogenous group. PURPOSE: We sought to analyze the factor structure of the Neck Disability Index through Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a symptomatic, homogeneous, neck population, with respect to pooled populations and gender subgroups. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of pooled data. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 1,278 symptomatic neck patients (67.5% female, median age 41 years), 803 nonspecific and 475 with whiplash-associated disorder. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Neck Disability Index was used to measure outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed pooled baseline data from six independent studies of patients with neck problems who completed Neck Disability Index questionnaires at baseline. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis was considered in three scenarios: the full sample and separate sexes. Models were compared empirically for best fit. RESULTS: Two-factor models have good psychometric properties across both the pooled and sex subgroups. However, according to these analyses, the one-factor solution is preferable from both a statistical perspective and parsimony. The two-factor model was close to significant for the male subgroup (p<.07) where questions separated into constructs of mental function (pain, reading headaches and concentration) and physical function (personal care, lifting, work, driving, sleep, and recreation). CONCLUSIONS: The Neck Disability Index demonstrated a one-factor structure when analyzed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a pooled, homogenous sample of neck problem patients. However, a two-factor model did approach significance for male subjects where questions separated into constructs of mental and physical function. Further investigations in different conditions, subgroup and sex-specific populations are warranted.